I found this reasonably enjoyable. Yea his acting was not great but it kind of suited the storyline. I did laugh at the "prostate cancer" scene.
Grandma's House - Series 1 Page 10
Quote: Tim Walker @ August 10 2010, 2:25 AM BSTA big difference between composing witty rejoinders to put-down minor celebrities and writing strong narrative comedy.
That's its worst fault, it is written by an average quality minor comedian who deals in repartee and putdowns in place of narrative comedy. He mistakes sarcasm for wit and he is clearly an idiot for thinking he can just bundle his way into a specialist art form and create a winner, without even studying what a sitcom is and does. All he has probably done here is give his inflated reputation the massive dent it deserved. imo.
I've watched it again and I think I was too kind to it, it really is quite terrible. What I find most appalling about it is his pseudo biographical disaffection with the celeb career and liestyle. So what does he do, create and star in a non essential celeb based 'sitcom' to tell us this! Is this supposed to be irony? I ask him. Couldn't he just have retired from TV and told us his disaffection in a book or column? Wouldn't that have been more genuine?
The truth about this whole project is that it's a cosy little back hander for a BBC regular, it is cheap for BBC to make and they can use the 'star' vehicle ploy to pull in viewers; it is a massive confection of self indulgent tripe, pitifully weak and it does indeed blatantly resemble The Royale Family. What is left in this shitcom to admire? The acting?!! Well done BBC, you've now proved beyond all doubt how creatively bankrupt, incestuous and contemptuous of outsiders you really are. But I've said enough on it now, apologies for overstating my case but right from the start of the project I expected this is all it would be, and it infuriates me how the BBC behave. 
Got yourself in a tizzy again, I see.
I can understand people not liking the low key style, or not liking his acting, but I don't see how this was 'terrible', there were plenty of funny bits.
Strange how differently people can see something.
Quote: Timbo @ August 9 2010, 11:18 PM BSTYou would have thought that the Beeb might have learnt something from Johnny Vaughan's vanity project.
Ah, mythology. In fact, Johnny Vaughan and Ed Allen wrote a show which was meant to be about two fat blokes. When it came to shooting a pilot, they could only find one suitable fat bloke, and the then producers persuaded Johnny Vaughan to appear. By the time 'orrible was completed, Vaughan had done a deal with the BBC, so when the show was transmitted it was seen as part of the deal rather than as a project which predated it by two years. So it wasn't a vanity project.
If it hadn't all been done before, then I wouldn't call it terrible no, I did allow myself to smile at one or two bits, the best I thought was 'What are we doing?' when he got pulled into a manhug with Clive. I'd call it terribly weak and unoriginal rather than terrible then.
Quote: Micheal Jacob @ August 10 2010, 9:26 AM BSTAh, mythology. In fact, Johnny Vaughan and Ed Allen wrote a show which was meant to be about two fat blokes. When it came to shooting a pilot, they could only find one suitable fat bloke, and the then producers persuaded Johnny Vaughan to appear. By the time 'orrible was completed, Vaughan had done a deal with the BBC, so when the show was transmitted it was seen as part of the deal rather than as a project which predated it by two years. So it wasn't a vanity project.
I know that by tradition the acting profession are all body image obsessed metrosexuals, but you would have thought they would have been able to find one more overweight thespian. Is what you are really trying to say that the show would not have got made unless the producers had persuaded Johnny Vaughan to star in it as well as write?
Whatever the timeline for Vaughan's contractual arrangements with the BBC, and I imagine there is usually some courting that takes place before contracts are signed, the end result does not seem a million miles from what has happened with the Amstell vehicle. A sitcom has been made because 'talent' with no acting experience was the bait on the hook. To be honest it would not surprise me if Amstell had not originally intended to appear either; certainly if you took out half a dozen references to Buzzcocks the part could have been played by someone else. It was almost as if Amstell decided to play the part as himself simply because he recognised the limitations of his own acting ability.
But my remark was not really intended as an attack on the stars' vanity (for all I know Vaughan and Amstell may have the humility of Francis of Assissi), it was more along the lines of questioning the way commissioning decisions are made at the BBC. I have defended a lot of shows on here (Lab Rats, Big Top, The Persuasionists) because I could see what it was about the scripts that had caused them to be commissioned, and was more interested in learning from what had gone wrong than going for cheap jibes; but I just looked at this thought "Why?" - and the cynical answer was the most obvious.
In all fairness I should add that, if I use my imagination and edit out Amstell's jarring presence on screen, I can see, squinting a bit, that this might have had potential as a run of the mill Royle Family meets Kath and Kim domestic sitcom. It wasn't bad, just wrong. Perhaps it can be seen as a more extreme example of what happened with Lab Rats, which for my money fell down on writer Chris Addison's failure to pitch his own performance correctly.
Amstell isn't a big enough name to have money thrown at any 'vanity projects' he might have in his sock draw. I'm sure this was commissioned because someone loved the script and thought it would be a success.
Quote: zooo @ August 10 2010, 9:05 AM BSTI can understand people not liking the low key style, or not liking his acting, but I don't see how this was 'terrible', there were plenty of funny bits.
That's what I thought, I was laughing throughout.
Quote: chipolata @ August 10 2010, 11:08 AM BSTAmstell isn't a big enough name to have money thrown at any 'vanity projects' he might have in his sock draw. I'm sure this was commissioned because someone loved the script and thought it would be a success.
I imagine so, there's some paranoid nonsense spouted on here sometimes.
Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ August 10 2010, 8:51 AM BSTThe truth about this whole project is that it's a cosy little back hander for a BBC regular, it is cheap for BBC to make and they can use the 'star' vehicle ploy to pul in viewers; it is a massive confection of self indulgent tripe, pitifully weak and it does indeed blatantly resemble The Royale Family. What is left in this s*itcom to admire? The acting?!! Well done BBC, you've now proved beyond all doubt how creatively bankrupt, incestuous and contemptuous of outsiders you really are. But I've said enough on it now, apologies for overstating my case but right from the start of the project I expected this is all it would be, and it infuriates me how the BBC behave.
You are a silly, Kipper.
You lot do love to oversimplify. Nothing gets made simply because a star is attached; but things do get made that would not get made if a star was not attached. Amstel is not a household name, but he is young and on the rise; after Buzzcocks the BBC would be extremely interested in pursuing projects with him. He has traction.
Quote: Timbo @ August 10 2010, 11:26 AM BSTYou lot do love to oversimplify.
Who are the 'lot' you're talking about?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 10 2010, 11:29 AM BSTWho are the 'lot' you're talking about?
The people with less than average size penis'?
Well you in this case. Unfair perhaps, but I am feeling feisty this morning.
Quote: Timbo @ August 10 2010, 11:30 AM BSTWell you in this case. Unfair perhaps, but I am feeling feisty this morning.
Why? What exactly have I said that warrants that? I was calling Kipper silly for his mental over the top rants, and refuting someone elses idea that this got made simply because of Amstell's presence. Obviously having a name, however big or small, attached to a project is of benefit, of course it is. That's obvious and I don't appreciate the dig.
Quote: Timbo @ August 10 2010, 11:26 AM BSTYou lot do love to oversimplify.
You're the one that started throwing around phrases like vanity project. I'm sure Amstel has got traction, but so have a lot of people who can't get their stuff made.
Quote: Ben @ August 10 2010, 11:30 AM BSTThe people with less than average size penis'?
You obviously know Matthew much better than I do.